Skip to main content

tv   Consider This  Al Jazeera  March 1, 2014 1:00am-2:01am EST

1:00 am
discased ceo of the bit coin exchange. the company filed for bankruptcy after losing nearly $480 million worth of virtual currency. 850,000 bit coins apparently loss due to massive flaws in the company's security software, those are your headlines i am morgan radford. >> russia ranches up the pressure on ukraine and president obama reacts. is the country a powder keg ready to blow? also gentrification often gets a bad name but does it always deserving to bad mouthed? the oscars are here but why haven't viewers seen the nominees. i'm poiment welcome to "consider this." here is more ahead. >> chaos in ukraine.
1:01 am
russia accused of accepting military forces -- sending military forces into the area. >> we are now deeply concerned of reports of military movements taken by russian federation. >> an activist group smugd cameras in. should the -- smuggled am last in. >> the red carpet is down and the cameras are on. good and the oscar goes to ... >> we begin with the ongoing crisis and reports of russian intervention in ukraine. ukrainian leaders accuse russia of staging and armed invasion friday after uniformed men took
1:02 am
up positions where the black sea naval fleet is based. flights in and out of the region have been cancelled. the air space is closed. the u.s. coast guard in crimea is bokd b blocked by russian navies. security and permitted under bilateral agreements. deposed president viktor yanukovych held a press conference, blamed his ousting on a military coup. after more military mooch moves by russia were alleged president obama told reporters the united states was deeply
1:03 am
concerned by reports of russian military movements in ukraine. >> it would be a clear violation of russia's commitment to respect the independence sovereignty and borders of ukraine and of international laws and indeed the united states will sand with the intrucial community in frirming -- international in affirming that there will be consequences in ukraine. >> nick schifrin, good to have you on the show. says russia is trying to convene a military conflict. he queend a meeting o -- he convened a meeting on friday night. what's the latest? >> they're still deciding what to do. the recent operation or the recent traition mission as putin -- training mission as putin put it that the russians are doing on the ukrainian
1:04 am
border, 150,000, that's a training mission? the whole ukrainian army is 150,000. the new government is 28, 29 hours old and the political challenges, economic challenges that ukraine has they are absolutely focused on the south on crimea and they are trying to figure out what to do. the rhetoric has been very aggressive. what they have been saying is the military can go into the armed buildings or to the parliament buildings where the armed men stormed yesterday and people here are warning that the ukrainian military could go in and remove whoever these officials are, whoever these troops are on the border presumably, certainly the ukrainians think they're russian but it's not clear if the government has the will or ability to do that. they have not proven that they are willing to back up their words with any kind of military action down there.
1:05 am
so they do not have a lot of options which is why you hear obama coming out very strong. samantha power, the u.n. ambassador, coming out strong, releasing aggressive statements about russian military movements. >> those government buildings in the crimea are still in control by those men. do these military moves by what seem to be russian troops. >> they are deeply concerned. i talked to people in the last couple of hours how they feel about crimea. it is not representative of all of ukraine. crimea has never wanted to be part of ukraine since ukraine broke up in the 1990s. but the government believes it
1:06 am
needs to defend crimea. crimeans look towards the part of the ukraine and defend its territory and this is a bit personal. everyone i spoke to talked about putin on a personal level, not very nice comments that people here give me about putin but they really want to see the government stand up for itself. they want to see the government say actually, we want to draw the line in the sand. that's what they asked president yanukovych to say stop hooking towards russia -- looking tors europe we're going there's a real sense that they will be watching the government very closely but again it is not clear what they can do. and a lot of people just hoping that this can deescalate before it gets worse. >> a big crisis for a brand-new
1:07 am
government. nick schifrin, thank you for joining us tonight. for more now in the situation in ukraine and russia's involvement in the crisis i'm joined from washington, d.c. by william courtney, also special assistant to president clinton to russia, ukraine and u eu asia. he, strategy of campaigning, lessons from ronald reagan and boris ellio yeltsin. what is russia trying to do? good russia is testing the new government in kiev. i don't think russia wants to invade but it is dispatching troops in crimea, president
1:08 am
yanukovych flew back to his home base in donetske. later on wound up in russia. russia is in a defensive posture in some respects but are pushing the kiev government just as it good in the jann government in 2008. >> you're from the russian ukraine. what do you think the russians are doing? >> i think it's important to remember the domestic political situation both in ukraine and crimea. ukraine is one of the weakest moments in history, the country is essentially bankrupt. the ex-president has dubious legitimate legitimacy. there was a lot of reshuffling at the top of the command structure in the armed forces and just recently, yesterday,
1:09 am
the new leader, the new prime minister of crimea was elected and that person is a representative or the leader of so-called russian unity block, which is a prorussian political force that wants to hold a referendum in may in several months about the greater autonomy for crimeans. it would be premature to say this was a military invasion but what we are seeing is a show of force to claim support behind that new russian premier of crimea. >> do you think there's any chance they're positioning themselves to try to cut the peninsula off? >> that is possible as well. but we have to remember that the ukrainian armed forces have crimea.
1:10 am
there is a crimean black sea divisions. there are at least 40 tanks that belong to the ukrainian armed forces. so even if they close it off, log it off from the outside or block any access from the air they still will have to deal with the ukrainian armed forces that are there in crimeaa glp crimea. >> isn't that kind of a fuzzy threat, president obama's warning that there will be consequences? >> specifically not to be too specific, some of those costs would depend on how bad the russian actions are. for example if russian troopts russian troops make an out and out effort to seize crimea, i would see european sanctions congestion russia's leadership perhaps
1:11 am
freezing of assets. if on the other hand it's low level testing, that's kind of where we are now, where the troops that are russian in crimea, they are russian uniforms and hook like russian troops, looks like russia is trying to hedge its bet a bit. >> what you said concerns me, sanctions against leaders, makes you feel the cold war is back. >> president putin has moved russia in a backward direction. it's become more and more authoritarian and dictatorial in nature. what they perceived that a neighbor is weak and apazi is a strategic area right on the eastern black sea coast, crimea is even more strategic, russia may try to do something here, mostly by bluster an
1:12 am
intimidation but not an out and out invasion. >> sergei, president obama also said that russia's possible invasion of ukraine's sovereignty, said it wasn't in anyone's interest but couldn't it be in russia's interest? >> well, there are certainly reasons, strategic reasons for why russia may be interested in taking control over crimea. one ofs to reasons is the issue of the russian black sea fleet. if you remember, the lease of sevastopol has been extended by the previous president, president yanukovych for another 25 years and that is something recognize. they want to end that lease in 2017 and to make russia withdraw its black sea fleet from crimea, something putin really doesn't want to do and the second is the issue of nato membership.
1:13 am
they may want to restart their goalkeepers on the membership action plan for nato and if russia creates this new quasi-state in crimea, claim its state then it may be harder for ukraine to become a member of nato. these may be strategic actions that putin is trying. >> i think what president putin -- president obama has done today was a very strong statement. an unscheduled press conference, that is quite unusual. chancellor angela merkel in germany has been very forceful as well, the ukrainian government should not do what the georgian government did in 2008, by responding with some force of its own.
1:14 am
russia would like to have that so there wouldn't be black and white. right now it's black and white, it's russian aggression, even low level congregation aggression, but still aggression. >> accused putin of empire building, it's certainly getting ugly on the rhetoric side, it's a pleasure having you both on the show and look forward to having you back. >> thank you. >> turning from ukraine to brutal atrocities in the world's youngest country south sudan. what's going on there is horrific, in the town of malakol, in the oil rich north. find no words to describe the brutalities in malakol. war crimes are being committed with impunity.
1:15 am
colonel hoff says there is no humanity here. and in the words of u.n.'s toby lanzer, there is nothing left there but dead bodies. hundreds of houses stores and markets burned to the ground and corpses left lying in the streets. the town's teaching hospital was also attacked by rebels last week, 14 patients shot some apparently in their beds. fighting broke out in south sudan last december between forces loyal to the country's president and others to south sudan's former vice president. and while a cease fire was declared more than a month ago, human rights reports that a human massive destruction and widespread loading have emerged in this conflict. for more i am joined by preston
1:16 am
lyman, and via skype from northhamton, massachusetts, researcher and honor of compromising with evil, an archival history of greater sudan, 2007 to 2012. eric i'll start with you. i know you've been in touch with people in south sudan. what do you hear about what's going on in malakol? >> sadly, malakol is not alone. we have reports from bor and juba although not on the same scale. what we have to watch for is exactly what human rights said, displace people, it is difficult to believe there are fewer than 1 million people internally displaced or refugees. how will we provide humanitarian assistance to them, before the
1:17 am
rainy season begins in may? >> even though this country has oil 90% of people are reported to survive on less than $1 a day. and ambassador a cease fire was called in january. why has it not held? >> it was a very fragile cessation of hostilities from the very beginning. it is not even clear that the forces are under unified command and there has been no political process laid out that would have the leaders in possession of strategic locations. so much more has to be done just to get a peace process started. and the egad, the regional group of african states dealing with this has to step up much more backed by the u.n, backed by the african union. >> eric is that not a point? what the ambassador just said?
1:18 am
just formed in 2011 and there's been all sorts of fighting ever since. there's only one tribe that has as many as a million people, a country of 8 to 10 million people, there are all sorts of tribes, 60 languages in the country. how do you unify a place like this? how do you pacify it? >> the fighting we are seeing now had no precedence in the years 2005 when the comprehensive peace grement was signed and this past -- agreement was signed and this past december 15th. there is certainly built up political anger and in many cases justified and government issues need to come toll inform, they need -- to the fore, they need to be dealt with. riek machar is not really representative of the opposition in sudan. and the sooner we stop talking about rebelsas loyal to riek
1:19 am
machar and start saying that there is an ethnic dimension to this but there is also a political dimension. and that political dimension insofar as there's powerful opposition to salva kiir, is not in reaction to riek machar. >> a lot of this violence has been in oil rich areas, and oil production has crashed which means an oil poor country is getting poorer. >> it's not source of the conflict. it broke out over political issues and deep problems in governing the country. once it broke out control of the oil area becomes a strategic objective for each side. for south sudan 98% of the budget comes from oil. so for those opposed to salva
1:20 am
kiir, taking over the source of oil also destroys his source of income. so it has now become a matter of concern but not at the root of the problem. >> eric, what has to be done? there are -- the u.n. is there on the ground. there are all sorts of human rights groups there. but again, doctors without borders, people who are trying to help out have been attacked. so what can the international community do? >> well, the u.n. has authorized a very substantial augmentation of the u.n. mission in south sudan. it's deploying at a terrifyingly slow pace. unless we increase the amount of secure area that civilians can retreat to, and can receive humanitarian access, or receive humanitarian aid in, we're going to have a disaster this coming rainy season. we simply have to have more boots on the ground, more
1:21 am
logistics, more transports. tony lancing is doing a terrific job for the u.n. but he can't provide the security for these displaced people. >> ambassador you report a wrote for the united nations process for peace, on the path of democratization, good government and peace. how can that be done? role? >> well u.s. of course has to play a role. the u.s. and europeans and u.n. to back up the african efforts to get this started. but unless you get add those fundamental problems of how the country is governed, you won't conflict. now that's going to take a very strong demand from the international community that such a process be underway and under independent auspices, not
1:22 am
under the control of president kiir. and it's going to take at least two years to do this. so you have to have a combination of reinforced security and a demand for a political process. alone. they need the backing of the u.s. and the norwegians, the british and others, and a very strong backing from the u.n. security council. >> because it is a growing humanitarian crisis that could get horribly worse. ambassador princeton lyeman, and john kirk, thank you for join joining us. our social media producer hermela aregawi is tracking what's trending. >> we wanted to focus on those who don't get as much attention as martin luther king or mall
1:23 am
com x. uncelebrated heroes of black history. our results after this. leave a comment on our facebook ♪ what is this place?
1:24 am
where are we? this is where we bring together the fastest internet and the best in entertainment. we call it the x1 entertainment operating system. it looks like the future! we must have encountered a temporal vortex. further analytics are necessary. beam us up. ♪ that's my phone. hey. [ female announcer ] the x1 entertainment operating system, only from xfinity. tv and internet together like never before.
1:25 am
>> unless you're one of the lucky americans who has gotten a seat for a hearing at the u.s. supreme court, you've never seen what the proceedings at the nation's highest court looked like until today. someone snuck a video camera into the courtroom and posted it on youtube. the individual yes has ignited a long -- the video has ignited a long standing debate. we're now joined from chicago by jeffrey stone a distinguished professor of law at the university of chicago. he's the editor of the supreme court review at the university and the enviable job of clerking for supreme court justice william brennan. you are a perfect person to talk to about this. courts across the country as
1:26 am
you know including state supreme courts, allow cameras into their courtroom. why does the supreme court not? >> there are disagreement among judges and courts as to whether this is productive or not. the argument against it is pretty straightforward. bringing cameras into a proceeding like this can do is to distort the way everybody behaves. i've had lots of experience on this for example, testifying before congressable committees. closed proceedings, no cameras, senators and congressmen behave in a serious thoughtful manner. when the cameras are on they posture, they play to the constituents and it completely undermines the seriousness of the proceedings. i think it's important when you bring cameras into proceedings it has effects and the effects are not good. >> we've seen extremes of that in
1:27 am
the o.j. simpsonson case and anna nicole smith. the head of the supreme court and chief justice in ohio is a woman by the name of maureen o'connor and she has they have had no problems at all even though those proceedings are televised. >> with all due respect, i'm not sure 9 cares about the proceedings of the supreme court of ohio. >> you have to go all the way back to the 1930s, somebody got a camera in there so there are a couple of black and white still pictures. don't we want to learn more? this is so important what goes on there. >> first of all remember that justices of the supreme court write opinions explaining everything they do. and that sense they are much more transparent than any other part of the government. second of all there are oral
1:28 am
recordings, audio recordings, if anybody is interested in linning to them, they are perfectly willing to do so. they are highly technical, statutory interpretation, they are not basic discussions between ordinary people talking about policy matters. so the truth is most people who turned them on even if they were televised would probably turn them off pretty quickly. the other factor is, the justice i think are concerned that the media are not necessarily even handed and neutral, and responsible in a way that would deal with this material, they would undoubtedly look for headlines and for embarrassments and to take things out of context. and courts themselves operate in a funny way in a democracy. they wear robes, they write judicial opinions, they depend very much on a sense of dignity and dependence in order for them
1:29 am
to exercise their authority. and i think there's a sense that the intimacy that cameras would bring would in fact endanger the capacity of the courts not to be seen as part of the political process because they're not part of the political process. that's important. >> to your point my old friend jeffrey tuben, thought that the justices would end up on john stewart. one is not known for uttering a word. >> i would be in favor of the justices allowing an experiment allowing an oral argument to be broadcast and to see how it goes. that's what the justices did with the oral recordings. they didn't traditionally do it, they thought to try it, they allow all oral arguments to be audio-recorded. i would be in favor of them trying this as an experiment seeing how it works and deciding incrementally this is something
1:30 am
that would be more broadly lobroadly allowed. >> lets look at the ad from the coalition for court transparency. >> decisions impact the lives of americans everywhere but only a privileged few get to see the justices in action. support a simple fix, putting cameras in the supreme court. >> really polls do show that most americans think cameras should be in there. do you think it is going to change any time soon? >> i wouldn't be surprised if gradually the court moves in this direction. but i do think there are legitimate concerns. what they're doing there is serious business and i think they quite sensibly don't want to get that distorted in a way that undermines their ability to do their jobs well and the capacity of the supreme court to operate effectively given the critical role it plays in the democratic process. >> well i for one would watch
1:31 am
cspan if they put them on. i hope it will happen. >> antonio you would probably opportune the turn them off after five minutes. >> well i as a lawyer might not. our secure officers monitor you our borders with mexico taking the law in their own hands. found itself found that agents may be using excessive force by shooting at rock-throwers and deliberate blocking oncoming vehicles to give themselves an excuse to shoot. the report recommend the agency, discarded the report's findings and refused to change its policy. let's bring in andrea gondraga.
1:32 am
good to have you on the show. do you see frequent abuses by border patrol officers? >> yes, we do. we have been tracking abuses for the last three years. and in the last three years 28 people have been killed by border patrol. many of them we believe without justification. >> the arizona republic says that 45 people have been killed since 2005 in different places hoonalong the frontier with mex. what kind of abuses are the ones that you're seeing? >> well we're tracking the most egregious abuses. we're tracking the killings and the serious harm. and unfortunately these abuses are happening to migrants and u.s. citizens. of the 23 that we have tracks, one-third are u.s. citizens and one-third are miles a minors, many states.
1:33 am
>> what are those abuses? >> here where i live in san diego, a mother of five was in a residential area not far from where i live and she was visiting a friend, a plain clothed border agent was in the area serving a warrant and he sai asked her to stop. she did not recognize him. he was in plain clothes. she attempted to drive away. she was not the subject of a warrant or person of interest for him. he jumped in front of her car and shot her nine times dead leaving behind five u.s. citizen children and a family that will suffer this loss forever. >> on the other hand, the agency argues that the job that border patrol does is very dangerous, they often work in remote areas, they have little backup and not letting them shoot at vehicles or rock-throwers that if that
1:34 am
becomes the policy that that could put agents at risk. do they not have a point? >> it's important for everyone to remember that border patrol agency. it is not a branch of the military. and this was echoed by secretary jay johnson, secretary of homeland security first address two weeks ago. as a civil law enforcement agency, it needs adhere to the best policing practices. it needs to conform with the practices of any police department. so consume -- >> that is one of the criticisms of the agency that they have rules and policies that are forces. in fact they said that it doesn't release the names of officers involved in shootings. that it faces very little public oversight and very lax internal record keeping and investigations. but then despite this criticism from the report and from other sources the agency basically rejected the recommendations and said that they are simply not
1:35 am
going to follow the recommendations and they tried public. >> that's right. this was a policing expert agency. this is perf is the agency that conducted the audit and is revered internationally and nationally as is experts on policing. the agency, perf recommended to cvp that they not entirely prohibit the shooting of vehicles or rock-throwers but that they limit the shooting to situations in which the agents were in imminent threat or somebody else was in imminent threat of harm or death. >> and so -- >> that is standard policing practice and what border patrol is saying is that they are not going to abide by that recommendation which is a reasonable restriction on the use of lethal force. in the policing world, police are only allowed to use force when they are in imminent threat or somebody else is in imminent
1:36 am
threat of harm or death and in this cases what perf is finding is that agents are intentionally putting themselves in front of a vehicle in order to justify shooting at that vehicle. >> that is one of the accusation. some of the allegations were people throwing rocks at them over border fences. >> right. >> and in those cases even though they end up shooting in some cases into mexico would those cases qualify for them to defend themselves? >> again the perf recommendation is not that they never use lethal force but that they restrict that lethal force in situations where they are in imminent harm or death. what the perf report finds is agents are shooting at people in frustration. imagine if an agent shoot into the public out of frustration, we would go crazy.
1:37 am
that is not acceptable behavior. extraordinary power, the power responsibility. we demand that of the police and we demand it of the border agents who have the same extraordinary power that police have, but they do not have anything above and beyond that. they are not above the law. they need to conform to the law. >> andrea guerrero, it's good to have you with us to talk about this importantic. i'm sure there will be more developments ahead. thank you. let's check in with hermella. >> antonio, we wanted to spotlight those who contribute to black history but not recognized like martin luther king jr. or rosa parks are. we asked you this, it's black history month, who do you think is an unsung history? some are political activist
1:38 am
angela davis, luceie parsons, a labor worker and founder of the industrial workers of the world, an industrial union. and hughie p. newton, and julia bond who we have had on "consider this." others you may know but are making a difference. tony tolbert who donated his home to a homeless family for a year. thanks all of you for joining the conversation, you can read more at the website antonio back to you. >> thank you hermella. gentrification, is often crit criticized but does that criticism miss the mark?
1:39 am
why the bridge you drive over may
1:40 am
>> no doubt about it, innovation changes our lives. opening doors ... opening possibilities. taking the impossible from lab ... to life. on techknow, our scientists bring you a sneak-peak of the future, and take you behind the scenes at our evolving world. techknow - ideas, invention, life. on al jazeera america >> gentrification became a heated topic this week when spike lee criticized the way people were living. >> they just moved into the neighborhood. democracy, you got to respect these cats can't come in where people have the culture that's
1:41 am
been down for generations, and then, you talk about people's property change. but what about the people renting? they can't afford anymore. >> i agree. >> you can't afford it. >> for more on this i'm joined by justin davidson, architect, writing an article questioning gentrification, is it as bad as it's made out to be? you're raising a little bit of passion. why are people so passionate about this issue? >> the passion predates spiek lee. you're talking about where people live and socioeconomic groups. people feel very strongly about their block and their city and when you feel threatened and especially in tough economic times that's going to raise passions. >> the bad rap is it changes communities drastically and hurts people.
1:42 am
some people may make some money because property values go up and renters are kicked out and completely changes character of neighborhoods. is that fair? >> there are a lot of things in there. one thing is people being forced out and the other, changing character of the neighborhoods. there are two different things and we got to think of them separatelily. yes, rents go up, ra rapacious landlords, that's something that needs to be guarded against. and we also need places for people to live. on the changing the character issue, spike lee made a big deal about you know, this is a historic neighborhood with a certain kind of population, these are black neighborhoods, whites come in. you know, i have a lot of problem with that. because whose neighborhood it is is always going to be contested. neighborhoods are
1:43 am
rarely monolithic. before it was a black neighborhood it belonged to another ethnic group. and i think the basic principle is that an individual, people ought to be able to live wherever they want to, holds and applies to everybody including spike lee who moved from fort green to the upper east side. >> and i went to where he used to live and it was awfully nice too. you claim that gentrification doesn't need to be something one inflicts on another. is that really what happens? how often do the aspirations of people that are coming into the neighborhood really jell with the aspirations of the people in the neighborhood? good i think most of the time what people want in the neighborhood, you want decent schools you want sidewalks that aren't all cracked. you want good illumination, you want you know safe streets and so on.
1:44 am
and i think that people in neighborhoods that lack these things, spend a lot of time fighting to improve their own neighborhood. the thing is that when they do this, they are making the neighborhood more attractive for themselves. and also, for everybody else. so i don't think you can really separate the process of improving a neighborhood's basic services, basic businesses, bringing in hardware stores and healthy food and so on to a neighborhood from the process of people looking at that and saying this is a nice place and you know it can get better. and i want to live there too. >> this is an issue that really spans the whole country, it's not just a new york thing. and there was an interesting study out of the federal reserve of cleveland that looked at the cities that had gentrified the most, and boston was the one that gentrified the most. the percentage of low income neighborhoods that had been
1:45 am
gentrified. it followed by san francisco and washington. the worst was detroit, tulsa imloar baltimore and oakland and wichita. do the worst of the worst, get gentrified? i know cabrini green in chicago did. >> having to do with housing stock, access to transit, its geographic location, its history but also the economic health of the city as a whole. as a city's economy improves those benefits unfortunately don't get distributed evenly. and i think the policy should be aimed at trying to spread those benefits as much as possible. but sure, you know, what we saw in new york if you take a kind of longish view, not the longest view, but sort of back to the end of world war ii, and the
1:46 am
60s and 70s is the dramatic change in the worst neighborhoods, neighborhoods that had been completely written off. >> one that you mention is bed-sty, one of the worst in the city. we have to leave it there. sandra bullock is america's sweetheart, gravity is one of the highest grossing, what are her chances on oscar night?
1:47 am
real reporting that brings you the world. giving you a real global perspective like no other can. real reporting from around the world. this is what we do. al jazeera america.
1:48 am
>> today's data dive goes on the road with some concern. the department of transportation issued a frightening 400 page report about infrastructure problems in the u.s. roads bridges and highways are crumbling and drivers are increasingly at risk. the d.o.t. says there's an $86 billion backlog of programs to fix them and that financial backlog is growing by $2.5 million every year. one out of ten bridges are structurally deficient and other bridges are, quote, functionally obsolete.
1:49 am
the bridge collapse in minnesota ten years ago killed 13 people and raised our awareness of them. but the problem will not be easy to fix, that's because america's bridges are 26 years or older and the u.s. is already spending more than $100 billion every year to maintain roads and bridges alone and we're not even close to making the needed upgrades for rail and bus systems. the fixes sound great but how will we pay for them? taxes. this week president obama urged lawmakers to revamp corporate and business taxes to pay for the infrastructure improvements. he also wants to raise the federal gas tax which is already at more than 18 cents a gallon. we all want safe roads and bridges. the question will be whether we have the political will to make it happen. coming up. this big oscar weekend, we will run down the categories and why the most important money stories of the day might effect your savings, your job or your
1:50 am
retirement. whether it's bail-outs or bond rates this stuff gets complicated. but don't worry. i'm here to take the fear out of finance. every night on my show i break down confusing financial speak and make it real.
1:51 am
1:52 am
>> this weekend. an in-depth hook at all ten oscar nominated documentaries so "consider this," the only film feature length -- >> this is a long struggle. >> to short subject. >> just like michelangelo, in the sistine chapel. >> only on al jazeera america. >> it is oscar weekend and millions will tune in for hoirld' hollywood's biggest night. but a surprising report says millions of americans haven't seen even some of these. bill wyman joins us and ben
1:53 am
mankowitz, a critic and away the flick? is this more proof that it's television that matters these dates? >> well, television definitely matters these days. and there's no question that the best of television is better than the best of movies. but maybe two-thirds of americans have not seen any of the nominated films but they have certainly seen the actors and they love some of the actors. and two-thirds of americans that still leaves a third of americans and that's a lot of people. i don't really see this as a disconnect. when a third of americans have seen at least one and probably a lot of these films that's a pretty big group of people that all care about this night to some extent. >> the other surprising part of the poll, the people seem to like nominees who are not
1:54 am
favorites. let's start with best supporting actress bill. >> boy, i really like this category a lot. and forgive me i'm not going to get her first name right, nyongo, from 12 years a slave, i think she gave the best performance of the bunch. i'm rooting for her. all these people delivered. >> jen lawrence seems to be a favorite. >> i pay a lot of attention to the off-shore odds. lupita nyongo is one of the favorites, between nyongo and lawrence, jennifer is right there beside her, i think oprah is going to win, a strong
1:55 am
write-in. >> and best supporting actor, oprah is not nominated there either bill. >> jared leto, did a great club. there is a lot of precursors to the oscars that give you hints and a feeling in the air about certain things. both of those things together seem to suggest him. >> leto is a favorite. >> if you want to win 100 on leto, you got to bet 1600. every step along the way has led us to believe that jarrod leto will win. the people who were polled in that reuters poll say leonardo dicaprio.
1:56 am
will win. what do you believe? >> even if gravity the biggest grossing wins the big prizes, it still grossed a lot less relativ relatively taking into account the inflation. it's a very small movie nationally, but matthew mcconaughey is the favorite. >> you got to bet 600 if you want to win 100 on matthew mcconaughey. he is not as favorite as jarrod leto. seeing him deliver this incredible performance week after week in true detective, it has kept his talent fresh and on everybody's minds in this process. >> again, television making its presence. sandra bul lok was way ahead,
1:57 am
followed by my favorite, amy adams. you disagree. >> i do. sandra bul lo bul bullock is really underrated. but cate blanchett is favored, and mia farrow in her performance as well. a great complex performance. >> no matter what i say, the favorite is blanchett. >> it is cate blanchett, she can go pick up her award tonight if she wants to $1300 will win you $-- 3300 will win you 100. from a news worthiness point of view whether she talks about
1:58 am
woody allen, mentions him, i assume people will be very interested on this. >> best director, everyone seems to agree on this one. >> i think this movie gravity is a very beautiful deep subtextural textured one. they can't even imagine how he made it. it is a wondrous movie in several senses of the world. this may be the change where you have somewhat of an ang lee sort of achievement. >> what do you think bill? >> same, 2,000, to win 100 on him. except for last year as to what the oscars have to offer and i'm well. >> on best picture people were really divided. there was absolutely no clear favorite. people seem to vote for almost all these movies. who do you think will win? mr. this is hard because i think
1:59 am
gravity will win a lot of the technical awards but something about 12 years a slave, we saw vivian lee, 12 years a slave told us what went on in the backyard. driving miss daisy, has portrayed black american life in a very condescending way. this may be a chance to make amends to them. >> many school districts are going to start using 12 years a slave as a teaching to tool. that's what i thought, 1 to 5 not as much of a prohibitive favorite as some of the others but i think 12 years a shave will win on oscar night. only best supporting actress could be considered close so for me, what will be interesting is if there's an upset. any upset in those other five categories would be a majority upset.
2:00 am
>> the show may be over but the conversation continues. you can also find us on at which time @ajconsiderthis. cl >> ukraine in crisis. russian troops on the ground at president obama sends a message to the kremlin. >> the united states will stand with the ukrainians. >> cost of cold - plunging temperatures hikes up heating bills. why heating your home may get more expensive.